Banning loud children from restaurants, airplanes

Post Reply New Topic

Some people in this thread make it sound like children should be denied ANY service, including the right to travel freely or eat in public.

Why should he? Is it a human right to have screaming kids and not tell them to be quiet and learn to respect other human beings? If they are unable to perform that duty, they shouldn't have gotten the damn kids in the first place!

Parents today are so f*****g lazy and disrespectful to others, when i was a kid, my mom always told me to keep it down. When i sat down and screamed that i wanted a toy, she TOOK THE TIME and explained to me that i couldn't get it because they had no money at the time. Do parents to that today? No, because they are f*****g lazy moronic s**thead psychopaths that don't give a s**t about anyone outside of their f*****g family!

Take care of your damn kids! Start performing the parental duty you signed up for!

Heck I have a loud voice so I tend to talk loud. Now telling me to lower my voice is not telling me to shut up and not talk. Give me a break.

No one said anything about kids not being allowed to talk and speak, it's about them not screaming and running around being disruptive. Why can't some people comprehend this?

I think the people who cant comprehend simple facts like the one you and the poster above as well as myself have mentioned, as being the real problem with society. Now imma go back to streaming Dr. Who for my own viewing pleasure

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying I can't comprehend simple facts and the poster above me? I hope not.

I was saying in my post why can't people comprehend no one is saying kids can't talk and speak, they are saying they don't want them screaming and being disruptive. Big difference.

You always this aggressive and rude about everything? Bet you're f*****g fun to hang out with.

It was a large organisation that owns numerous tourist attractions.



All court records are open for the public to read are they? Prove it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 432AACi0Li

http://www.courtreference.com/ (from the first link)

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 941AAtzEEH

But if the judge has placed a gag order on her case and not just prevented both of them from mentioning it(which would be a bit silly i think) then the records wouldn't be public.


EDIT: i would also like to point out this makes your argument invalid as we have no way of confirming what you say.

The first and last link are not proof of anything, merely advice from an ordinary person. The second one relates to American courts and their records and therefore has no relevance.

In the country I was visiting at the time I had to file a written complaint with the government body responsible for dealing with discrimination. They then tried (unsucessfully) to resolve the issue with the service provider. The next step was to take it to court. The first step of this process was a hearing with just me, a rep of the service provider, a court clerk and a judge. This step does not involve lawyers and is not in open court. You cannot jump this step. If agreement is reached at this point, it is legally binding and it is also confidential, unless both parties agree. If agreement is not reached, it then goes to full on open court, lawyers, headaches and mountains of money. Thankfully, the service provider admitted fault and agreed compensation at the closed hearing stage.



My argument was that saying that 'denying someone service is not illegal' is a false statement. I cannot give more details of my case, for reasons already stated. But you can read the actual law yourself on the link below, thus confirming it is very real:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 403:EN:PDF

Some people were advocating banning them instead.





Personally, uncontrolled kids do my nut. Especially when they're my sisters. I know exactly what people mean about this new way of parenting that involves not parenting. Sister 1's kids played merry mayhem at sister 2's wedding, running all over the church throughout the service. I stuck my foot out and tripped up one of the little buggers at one point because he was running up and down the aisle while she was making her vows. It was different when I got married. I told my mum before hand that if we had a repeat performance I was going to stop the wedding and tell sister 1, in no uncertain terms to either get them bloody kids under control or get out. I would have done it too. Mother had all of them clamped between scary uncles for the duration.

Article 21
Non-discrimination
1.
Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin,
genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national
minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2.
Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific
provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.


My statement stands as true, I said "it isn't illegal to deny someone service" and it isn't it is however illegal to deny someone service when it violates a nations discrimination laws. It is not illegal to ban loud children nor is it illegal to deny an unprotected party service.

What country did this occur in so i can look up that country's laws that relate to discrimination, also it sounds like you saw a mediator not a court.


EDIT: You also haven't said how you were discriminated against so your argument is lacking the detail needed to be effective.

That would be called arbitration.....It is done outside of court but with a Judge and the other parties and it is legally binding.

Also, I don't think children should be banned from restaraunts, but pubs and such should be allowed to continue banning minors since minors are not allowed to consume alcahol in public or gamble on VLTs anyway. If a place wants to ban kids, they can always get a liqour license.

So you are against kids screaming and being disruptive? With your first response in this thread, I thought you were for it and thought it was okay for them to do and people are just intolerant of them doing it. That's what you made it sound like. Or do you still think that but your wedding was totally different so you wanted your sister to have her kids under control just because it was your wedding but elsewhere it be okay?

No, wasnt directed at you two, It was directed at those who cant comprehend what you both posted. IE: those who have to say you are wrong for stupid reasons. But yeah, maybe I should have clarified it a bit, or alot better.

I am against parents who allow their children to scream and be disruptive.

Clearly there is a difference between "Children being allowed to act up by poor parenting" and "Children doing what is natural to children."

The child throwing plates at the wall = misbehaving.

Child crying because his ears went on a plane because he isn't old enough to know how to regulate his pressure = not misbehaving.